Today, the Supreme Court is set to deliver a pivotal judgment on the contested declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant—a decision by Speaker Alban Bagbin that has sparked extensive political debate and refocused attention on the constitutional boundaries of the Speaker’s authority.
The case, filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, questions the Speaker’s power to unilaterally declare seats vacant, bypassing judicial oversight or the process of by-elections. Afenyo-Markin contends that Speaker Bagbin exceeded his constitutional authority by making this decision independently and argues that the Speaker’s actions lack legal grounds without a formal judicial process to confirm such vacancies.
The seats in question were declared vacant on October 17, 2024, after Bagbin argued that four Members of Parliament had violated constitutional obligations, which, he asserted, justified their removal from office. Bagbin’s interpretation of the 1992 Constitution regarding parliamentary vacancies has become the core issue in this case. His decision has raised questions about the Speaker’s role in enforcing constitutional mandates and the extent of his powers when addressing the conduct and accountability of MPs.
According to Afenyo-Markin, Bagbin’s unilateral declaration effectively disenfranchised the constituents represented by those MPs, stripping them of their rights to representation without due legal process. Afenyo-Markin’s suit emphasizes that only the judiciary possesses the authority to interpret constitutional provisions in such cases.
By bypassing the judiciary, Afenyo-Markin argues that Bagbin overstepped his constitutional limits, creating a dangerous precedent that, if left unchallenged, could lead to further misuse of power within parliamentary functions.
The Majority Leader’s legal team asserts that the matter at hand represents a violation of due process, contending that any decision to remove an MP from office must be grounded in a formal court judgment rather than a decision made solely by the Speaker of Parliament.
According to Afenyo-Markin’s filing, Bagbin’s declaration lacks legal standing and contradicts constitutional safeguards intended to protect both parliamentary independence and the rights of voters to representation. The argument centers on the idea that such declarations must go through the judiciary, not only for legal validation but to ensure fairness and accountability to the constituents affected.
In response to Afenyo-Markin’s suit, the Supreme Court initially issued an injunction preventing further action regarding the vacated seats until the matter could be fully reviewed and a final decision made. This injunction temporarily paused any steps toward filling the seats or holding by-elections, pending a definitive judgment on whether the Speaker’s declaration was constitutionally valid.
Speaker Bagbin, however, challenged the Supreme Court’s interim injunction, submitting a motion to have it reversed. In his motion, Bagbin argued that halting his declaration impeded his responsibilities as Speaker, specifically his duty to uphold parliamentary integrity and enforce constitutional compliance among members. Bagbin defended his declaration as a necessary step to maintain the standards of parliamentary conduct and discipline, arguing that his decision aligned with the Speaker’s authority to ensure that MPs uphold constitutional requirements.
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed Bagbin’s motion to lift the injunction, sustaining its initial ruling and maintaining that no further action could be taken regarding the disputed seats until the court issued its final decision. This move has intensified the scrutiny on the court’s upcoming ruling, with both sides awaiting a verdict that could significantly impact the balance of power between parliamentary authority and judicial oversight in Ghana.
For Speaker Bagbin, the issue revolves around his interpretation of the Speaker’s role in ensuring that MPs adhere to constitutional mandates. His position is that his actions were not a display of overreach but rather an exercise of his duty to hold MPs accountable to the standards expected of public representatives. Bagbin argues that he acted within his jurisdiction to declare the seats vacant, viewing this decision as part of his responsibility to safeguard parliamentary integrity and adherence to Ghana’s laws.
According to Bagbin’s legal team, the Speaker should be empowered to make such decisions to prevent a scenario where parliamentary standards could be compromised by MPs failing to meet their constitutional obligations without consequence.
The court’s judgment today holds substantial implications for the role of the Speaker, as well as the judiciary’s influence in matters of parliamentary accountability.
Should the court side with Afenyo-Markin, it would effectively establish that the Speaker does not possess unilateral power to declare parliamentary seats vacant, affirming the judiciary’s role as the ultimate interpreter of constitutional disputes. Such a decision would reinforce judicial oversight as a necessary check on parliamentary authority, underscoring that the Speaker’s role does not include the power to independently remove MPs without due process.
Conversely, a ruling in Bagbin’s favor would endorse a broader interpretation of the Speaker’s powers, potentially granting him greater authority to take disciplinary action against MPs without the need for judicial validation. Such a verdict would affirm that the Speaker holds substantial discretion to maintain parliamentary discipline and integrity, even if that includes decisions impacting MPs’ status in office.
As Ghana watches this case unfold, it has sparked substantial debate among political figures, legal experts, and the public. For supporters of Afenyo-Markin, this case represents a necessary defense of constitutional checks and balances, warning that permitting the Speaker to exercise unchecked authority risks undermining the judiciary’s role. Meanwhile, proponents of Bagbin’s position see his actions as a needed enforcement of parliamentary standards, arguing that the Speaker should have the capacity to hold MPs accountable without relying on protracted judicial processes.
Today’s ruling will be a landmark moment in defining the limits of parliamentary authority and the judiciary’s role in Ghanaian governance. Regardless of the outcome, it is likely to set a precedent for future interactions between the Speaker of Parliament and the judiciary on matters related to constitutional interpretation and the balance of power within government institutions.
As both sides await the final verdict, this case has underscored the critical importance of clearly defined roles within the government and the necessity of maintaining a balance between legislative authority and judicial oversight.
The court’s decision will not only address the immediate question of the four parliamentary seats but also set a long-term precedent on the power dynamics between Ghana’s legislative and judicial branches.
